What constitutes a bad camera

Started Nov 8, 2012 | Discussions thread
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,394
Like?
A combination of factors...
In reply to illy, Nov 8, 2012

illy wrote:

since there are so many comparisons in different threads and forums with the different manufacturers, and sometimes a "mine is better than yours" syndrome appears often when simply discussing different technical aspects of bodies.........what actually is bad camera and why?

-- hide signature --

one by one the penguins steal my sanity

A combination of factors.

I was lucky enough to have in a .short period of time the E-620 and the E-PL1, and then the E-PL3 and the E-P2, all with the same sensor.

The latter I kept.

The E-620 was too noisy and didn't have enough small primes, the E-PL1 was stolen and replaced with the E-PL3. This I loathed because of the 16:9 screen, lack of grip and bad IBIS.

In the end I found the E-P2 a quiet classic, and therefore worth to be kept even if technogically outdated. It has a beautiful colour signature, and good ergonomics for the size.

So 'quiet classic' is my formula, the opposite being an unbalanced camera. The latest and greatest doesn't necessarily do it for me. Perhaps I am ready for a second hand Leica or an E-X1.

Bad design is a no-no, camera shouldn't ever get in the way or spoil your spontaneity. Unfortunately these things are often forgotten in a frenzy of fast replacement.

So, a camera which doesn't need to be replaced too often, with high sensitivity not killing base ISO, or colour.

Am.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow